Sunday, August 24, 2014

Window on Eurasia: Stalin’s Annexation of Western Ukraine a Major Error, Russian Historian Says

Paul
Goble

Staunton, August 24 – Stalin made “an
error” in annexing Galicia to the Ukrainian SSR via the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact
because what Moscow needed with war on the horizon was “the establishment of
buffer states on the border of the USSR and not their being pulled into the
Union itself” with all the border changes that would involve, according to
Vladimir Kornilov.

“It was possible and necessary to
draw Galicia into its sphere of influence,” the director of the Moscow Center
for Eurasian Research says, “but to join it to the USSR or even more to the
Ukrainian SSR was a mistake,” one that had fateful consequences for the future
of the region (svpressa.ru/politic/article/96173/).

Kornilov’s argument, made in an
interview with Dmitry Rodionov of Svobodnaya Pressa, is important both
historically and politically. Historically, it represents a rare dissent among
Russians from Stalin’s annexations under the secret protocols of the
Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, annexations that involved the three Baltic countries,
Bessarabia, and Western Belarus as well.

And politically, it can be read and
certainly will be seen by many as an implicit criticism of Vladimir Putin’s Anschluss of Crimea, an action
that also has had enormous consequences for the Russian Federation both in
terms of alienating Ukraine and the West and in terms of that country’s
domestic development.

According
to Kornilov, there has always been “a struggle between at a minimum two
Ukraines,” a conflict which one can capture by the two phrases, “Together
forever,” or “Get away from Moscow.”That was true in the 18th century, the 19th
century, the 20th century and even now.

“There
have been times,” the historian says, “when it appeared that one Ukraine had
finally defeated the other.”Thirty or
forty years ago, anyone who said that portraits of Bandera would appear on the
streets of Ukrainian cities would have been viewed as mad. At that time, that “other
Ukraine” appeared to have finally been suppressed or destroyed.

But
now the political “wind” has changed direction, and some imagine that that is
permanent as well, Kornilov says. However, in his view, “a financial victory in
the war of the two Ukrainians can never be,” and that is something which “both
the one side and the other must understand.”

At
the very least, the two must reach an agreement either about “how to co-exist
in a civilized fashion within the framework of a single state” – something Kornilov
says he thinks will be increasingly difficult given the intensity of conflict
now “or alternatively split up in a civilized way.”

The
existence of the two Ukraines, Kornilov says, has another consequence. When one
side thinks it has one, the other becomes a supporter of federalization. When
it appeared that the pro-Moscow Ukraine had won, Galicia and Western Ukraine
more generally were the chief advocates of federal arrangements.

When
the reverse appeared to be true as know, the advocates of federalism shifted as
well.What has to happen, the historian says, is that both Galicia and the
Donbas need to understand that neither has the chance to defeat the other
forever – and they need to understand that “at the same time and without
illusions on the part of one or the other.”